INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR

SOIL MECHANICS AND

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

This paper was downloaded from the Online Library of

the International Society for Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE). The library is
available here:

https://www.issmge.org/publications/online-library

This is an open-access database that archives thousands

of papers published under the Auspices of the ISSMGE and
maintained by the Innovation and Development
Committee of ISSMGE.

The paper was published in the proceedings of the

20th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering and was edited by Mizanur
Rahman and Mark Jaksa. The conference was held from
May 1st to May 5th 2022 in Sydney, Australia.
 Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering– Rahman and Jaksa (Eds)
© 2022 Australian Geomechanics Society, Sydney, Australia, ISBN 978-0-9946261-4-1

Equipment limits and parameter determination of cone penetration and flat

dilatometer tests in hard soils and soft rocks (HSSR)
Limites des équipements et détermination des paramètres des essais de pénétration au cône et
des essais au dilatomètre plat dans les sols durs et les roches tendres (HSSR)
Stefan Stauder & Thomas Marcher
Institute of Rock Mechanics and Tunnelling, Graz University of Technology, Austria, stauder@tugraz.at

Markus Harmuth
Former student at Graz University of Technology

ABSTRACT: Cone penetration testing (CPT) is an in situ test method which is used to determine geotechnical properties of fine-
grained soils. Due to its fast and cost-efficient applicability, it could also be considered as a tool for estimating parameters in hard
soils and soft rocks. To explore the limits of conventional CPT and flat dilatometer (DMT) devices, three testing campaigns were
conducted in areas where this material is expected to be encountered. In addition to the conventional CPT setup, several measures
were administered to ease the penetration such as friction reducers, lubrication and different tip geometries.

RÉSUMÉ: Le test de pénétration du cône (CPT) est une méthode d'essai in situ qui est utilisée pour déterminer les propriétés
géotechniques du sol dans les sols mous à grains fins. En raison de son applicabilité rapide et rentable, il peut également être considéré
comme un outil d'estimation des paramètres du sol dans les sols durs et les roches tendres. Pour explorer les limites des dispositifs
conventionnels de CPT et de dilatomètre plat (DMT), trois campagnes d'essais ont été menées dans des zones où ce matériau est
susceptible d'être rencontré. En plus de la configuration conventionnelle du CPT, plusieurs mesures ont été administrées pour faciliter la
pénétration dans le sol, comme des réducteurs de friction, la lubrification et différentes géométries de pointe.
KEYWORDS: cone penetration test, seismic flat dilatometer test, hard soil, soft rock.

1 INTRODUCTION Table 1. Soil layers in the project area.

The cone penetration test (CPT) is an in situ test method used to
determine geotechnical properties of preferential fine-grained
soils. Soil parameters can be identified by pushing an
instrumented cone into the ground at a controlled rate. During
three testing campaigns, the limitations of CPT soundings in hard
soil – soft rock areas were investigated and extended by using
cones with varying tip geometry and reducing the friction along
the push rods. In addition, geotechnical parameters obtained by
CPTs were compared with SDMT data and preliminary site
investigations.
This paper is intended to show the applicability, the
parameter determination, and limitations of common “soil
mechanical” in situ testing methods with regard to hard soils and
soft rocks (HSSR).
1.1 Project area
The tests were performed from October 2019 to January 2020 at
the construction of a new motorway, located in south-eastern
Austria. The underground of the project area is assembled by five
different soil layers (Table 1, from top to bottom). Embankments
(layer A) are mainly constructed beneath traffic routes otherwise
the cover (layer B) constitutes the project surface with a
thickness of up to 5.6 m. This layer consists mainly of stiff plastic
clay with varying content of fine sand and includes silty, medium
to coarse grained gravel. The thickness of soil layer C is
heterogeneous and reaches up to 4.9 m. The layers D and E are
composed of alternating fine-sandy, strong plastic silts and silt-
clays. In addition, silty to strong silty fine-sands or rather fine to
medium sands can be detected including brittle to moderately
hard silt-, clay- or sandstone layers with a thickness of up to
several decimeters. These clay, sandstone and siltstone layers
show a uniaxial compressive strength of up to 1.2, 4.5 and 3 MPa
(Harmuth, 2020). Furthermore, individual water-bearing layers
can be found in the project area.
Layer Lithography γ [kN/m³] Φ [°] E [MN/m³]
A Embankment - - -
B Cover 19 20-24 25-30
C Quaternary gravel and sand 21 32-37 160-250
D Miocene, predom. silt-clay* 20 20-25 45-100
E Miocene, predom. fine sand* 20 27-32 110-180
* including brittle to moderately hard silt-, clay- and sandstone layers (HSSR)
1.2 Cone penetration test (CPT)
As mentioned in the introduction a CPT is used to determine
geotechnical properties of preferential soft fine-grained soils.
Usually, the steel cone is pushed with a controlled rate of 2 cm/s
into the soil. During the sounding, the cone resistance (qc) and
the sleeve friction (fs) are recorded. Beyond that, pore water
pressure measurements can be conducted using piezocones
(CPTu). Further parameter as the Young’s modulus, the soil unit
weight and the soil behavior type can be derived from the raw
CPT data, which makes the CPT a powerful tool for investigating
the ground (Robertson & Cabal, 2014).
Standard CPT cones have an aperture angle of 60°, which
should cause the least cone resistance for soil penetration
(Durgunoglu & Mitchell, 1973). The primary cone has a diameter
of 35.7 or 43.7 mm for onshore investigations, which is equal to
a cross-sectional area of 10 or 15 cm², respectively.
Additional friction reducers can be used to decrease the
friction force along the rods. Friction reducing measures can
either be lubricants – injected between the rod and the wall of the
thrust hole – or steel parts to enlarge the cross-section to ensure
a distance between the rods and the underground (Figure 1). The
latter, of course, only works if the ground is stable and maintains
the distance between the borehole and the soil.
1.3 Flat dilatometer (DMT) and seismic flat dilatometer
(SDMT)
The flat dilatometer test is also an in situ test used in fine-grained
soils to determine their properties. The DMT is a thin steel blade
with a circular steel membrane. During the test, the dilatometer
is pushed continuously into the ground and measures at a

531
constant distance, usually every 20 cm. When the desired test
depth is reached, the membrane is expanded and the required
pressure to push the membrane to its neutral position is recorded
and called A-pressure. The pressure which is needed to move the
center of the membrane 1.1 mm into the soil is the B-pressure.
The seismic dilatometer combines the flat dilatometer with a
seismic module for measuring the shear wave velocity. The
SDMT can be used to determine the stratum composition, the in
situ stress and the shear strength of the soil, amongst others
(Marchetti et al., 2019; Österreichisches Normungsinstitut,
2017). These seismic dilatometer measurements were sought to
compare and confirm the CPTu readings carried out.
1.4 Hard Soil – Soft Rock
Rock and soil are clearly defined but in between lies a widely
scattered transitional area that can be assigned to neither rock nor
soil. Hard soils and soft rocks in the sense of consolidated soil
and weak rock are generally caused by weathering processes
and/or consolidation. HSSR can be characterized by different
procedures whereby one has proven to be useful. This is the
differentiation of the material based on its uniaxial compressive
strength (UCS). Here the material is considered as HSSR when
the UCS is approximately between 0.5 and 25 MPa (Marcher et
al., 2020). The mechanical behavior of HSSR includes strain
hardening, strain softening and is highly influenced by the
confining pressure. In the course of projects where the allocation
of ground parameters and/or numerical analyses related to HSSR
are necessary, laboratory tests and improved in situ tests are
required to enable a mapping of the real material behavior
(Stauder et al., 2020).
2 IN SITU TESTS AND EVALUATION METHOD
24 cone penetration tests and three seismic dilatometer tests were
conducted at five different locations in the project area. All tests
were executed with a truck mounted CPT system from Geomil
equipment. The maximum thrust force was 200 kN and the used
control rate of the CPT was 2 cm/s.
2.1 Method
Standard CPTu tests were carried out at different locations with
15 cm² subtraction cones combined with rods with a 10 cm²
cross-section to determine the limits of conventional CPT setups.
Additional tests with dummy cones with varying tip geometry
were executed without gauges to measure the sleeve friction or
the cone resistance. In this case, however, the recorded thrust
force over depth was used to quantify the penetration result.
To determine the influence of changing cone geometries,
tests were carried out with cones with a cross section of 10, 15
and 24 cm² and a tip aperture angle of 40, 50 and 60°.
Furthermore, attempts were made to minimize the friction along
the rods by installing different friction reducers which should
result in lower total thrust forces. A hull from Pagani and cams
mounted around the rods were used as friction reducing measures
(Figure 1). The friction reducers were installed directly above the
cone or 4 times 8 cams were welded around the linkage 3, 6, 9
and 12 m above the tip. Moreover, water was used as lubricant to
test whether this will help in reducing the friction between the
thrust hole wall and the rods. Therefore, water was inserted in a
20 cm deep depression around the thrust hole. Lubricating the
borehole through the rods was not possible due to the wired
measurement system (cabled rods). Aside from that, a CPT with
an additional casing was utilized when encountering difficult soil
conditions. This is basically a pipe with a larger diameter around
the linkage which should minimize the friction between the rods
and the soil and stabilize the system to prevent the rods from
buckling.
532
Figure 1. Ring (left), Pagani hull (middle), cams (right) as friction
reducers.
The obtained results were evaluated by comparing the maximum
sounding depth and the resulting total thrust force (dummy cone).
For the standard CPTu, data on cone resistance and sleeve
friction are also available. With this data, it is possible to
calculate the friction along the entire rod when the maximum
thrust force is reached. The total friction force Frod can be
calculated with:
Fro = Qt – (qc * Ac) – (fs * As) (1)
where Qtm represents the total thrust force, qc the cone resistance,
fs the sleeve friction resistance, Ac the cone base area and As the
shell surface of the sleeve
2.2 Parameter determination based on CPTu, SDMT and
preliminary investigations
Standard CPTu soundings with 15 cm² piezometer tips were
carried out at five measurement sites to determine the soil
properties. In addition, it was possible to obtain data from
seismic flat dilatometer measurements in the immediate vicinity
of the CPTu tests. The geotechnical parameters from the in situ
tests were evaluated and values (as the specific weight, the
effective friction angle and the Young’s modulus) were compared
with the results of the preliminary investigations. Furthermore,
the soil unit weight, the overconsolidation ratio and the
undrained shear strength gathered by the SDMT soundings were
compared with values from the CPTu tests.
2.2.1 Evaluation of CPTu data
The CPTu soundings supply the parameters cone resistance qc,
sleeve friction resistance fs, pore water pressure u2 and the total
thrust force Qtm. These characteristic values were used to derive
further geotechnical parameters.
Due to the inner geometry of the cone penetrometer the pore
water pressure acts on the cone from above and on the friction
sleeve from below. As a result, the cone resistance must be
corrected by the pore water pressure acting on the cone
(Österreichisches Normungsinstitut, 2013). The corrected cone
resistance qt is calculated from qc, and u2 using Eq. 2. The net area
ratio a for the used cones is 0.85.
qt = qc + u2 (1 – a) (2)
The corrected friction ratio Rft describes the ratio of the friction
sleeve resistance fs and the corrected cone resistance qt recorded
at the same depth. It is calculated according Eq. 3
(Österreichisches Normungsinstitut, 2013).
Rft = (fs / qc) * 100 (3)
The soil unit weight (specific weight) γ is determined after
Robertson and Cabal, (2010) with:
γ / γw = 0.27 [ log Rft ]+ 0.36 [ log (qt / pa)] + 1.236 (4)
whereas γw ist the unit weight of water and pa the atmospheric
pressure.
 The total overburden stress σv0 can be calculated with the soil OCR = 0.25 (Qt1)1.25 (19)
unit weight γ and the depth z (Eq. 5). With the in situ pore The undrained shear strength su can be calculated with Eq. 20.
pressure u0 and the total overburden stress σv0, Eq. 7 gives the The cone factor Nkt varies in clay between 10 and 18. Due to the
effective overburden stress. The groundwater level zw for the lack of experience related to HSSR, it was assumed with 14
calculation of u0 (Eq. 6) is determined by surrounding core (Robertson & Cabal, 2014).
drillings. In case the groundwater level is below the maximum su = (qt - σv0) / Nkt (20)
reached probe depth, u0 is zero, so that the total overburden stress
is equal to the effective overburden stress. To determine the small strain stiffness G0, the small strain
stiffness factor αM is calculated (Eq. 22). From this, as well as
σv0 = γ * z (5)
from the corrected cone resistance and the total overburden stress,
u0 = γw * (z – zw) (6) G0 is obtained according to Eq. 21 (GeoLogismiki, 2014). Since
σ’v0 = σv0 – u0 (7) the friction ratio is strongly depending on the soil sensitivity and
The normalized soil behavior (SBTn) type is determined by using influences Ic, the results from Eq. 21 are less reliable for fine-
the SBTn-chart by Robertson (2010). To allow the use of this CPT grained soils than for coarse-grained soils (Robertson, 2009).
SBTn-chart, the normalized cone resistance Qt1 and the 0 = α * (qt - σv0) (21)
normalized friction ratio Fr can be combined in the SBTn-Index α = 0.0188 * [100.55 * Ic + 1.68] (22)
Ic (Eq. 10). Qt1 and Fr are calculated using Eq. 8 and 9. With the
index Ic, the exponent n can be determined from Eq. 11 for the 2.2.2 Evaluation of SDMT-data
normalized cone resistance Qtn (Eq. 12). Subsequently, the index The results obtained from flat dilatometer tests are the A- and B-
Ic must be recalculated using Eq. 13, but with Qtn instead of Qt1. pressure. Those earth pressure values must be corrected using
Eq. 11, 12 and 13 are iterated until the difference for n, Dn is < Eq. 23 and 24 to gain the corrected A- and B- pressures called p0-
0.01 (Robertson & Cabal, 2014). and p1-pressures (Österreichisches Normungsinstitut, 2017).
Qt1 = (qt - σv0) / σ’v0 (8) p1 = B – ΔB - (23)
Fr = (fs / (qt - σv0)) * 100 (9) p0 = 1.05 (A + ΔA – ) – 0.05p1 (24)
Ic = ((3.47 – log Qt1)² + (log Fr + 1.22)²)0.5 (10) ΔA and ΔB represent the corrections determined by membrane
n = 0.381 * Ic + 0.05 * (σ’v0 / pa ) – 0.15 (11) calibration (Totani et al., 2001), Zm is the pressure gauge
Qtn = ((qt - σv0) / pa) * (pa / σ’v0)n (12) deviation from zero when the dilatometer blade is exposed to
Ic = ((3.47 – log Qtn)² + (log Fr + 1.22)²)0.5 (13)
atmospheric pressure.
From the pressure values and the pre-insertion in situ pore
The soil behavior types 2 to 7 can be classified by the calculated pressure u0, Eq. 25 can be used to determine the material index
SBTn-Index according to Table 2. Soil behavior type 1 is given ID. According to Marchetti (1980), the mechanical behaviour of
by Eq. 14. The overconsolidated zones 8 and 9 can be determined the soil can be classified with ID and the dilatometer modulus ED
with the help of the normalized friction ratio Fr and Eq. 15 (Eq. 26) according to Table 3 and the chart for estimating the soil
(Robertson & Cabal, 2014). type and unit weight γ after Marchetti & Crapps (1981) (Totani
Qtn < 12 * exp (-1.4 * Fr) (14) et al., 2001).
Qtn ≥ [0.006 (Fr -0.9) – 0.0004 (Fr – 0.9)² - 0.002]-1 (15) I = (p1 – p0) / (p0 – u0) (25)
E = 34.7 (p1 – p0) (26)
Table 2. Normalized Soil Behavior Types by Robertson (2010).
# Soil Behavior Type (SBTn) Ic Table 3. Soil classification with ID and ED.
1 Sensitive, fine grained Eq. 14 # Soil Behavior Type (SBTn) Classification
2 Organic soils – clay Ic ≥ 3.6 1 Clay ID < 0.33
3 Clays – silty clay to clay 2.95 ≤ Ic < 3.60 2 Silty clay 0.33 < ID > 0.60
4 Silt mixtures – clayey silt to silty clay 2.60 ≤ Ic < 2.95 3 Clayey silt 0.60 < ID < 0.80
5 Sand mixtures – silty sand to sandy silt 2.05 ≤ Ic < 2.60 4 Silt 0.80 < ID < 1.20
6 Sands – clean sand to silty sand 1.31 ≤ Ic < 2.05 5 Sandy silt 1.20 < ID < 1.80
7 Gravelly sand to dense sand Ic ≤ 1.31 6 Silty sand 1.80 > ID < 3.30
8 Very stiff sand to clayey sand* 1.5 < Fr < 4.5 & Eq. 7 Sand 3.30 < ID
15 8 Mud 0.10 < ID & 5 < ED < 12
9 Very stiff, fine grained* Fr ≥ 4.5 & Eq. 15 9 Mud and/or peat ID < 0.10 & 5 < ED < 12
* Heavily overconsolidated or cemented
The calculation of the overconsolidation ratio OCR is performed
The CPTu data can also be used to determine the Young’s according to Eq. 27. The OCR depends on the horizontal stress
modulus Es for young, uncemented silica sands (Eq. 16, index KD which is calculated by Eq. 28. The condition is
Robertson & Cabal, 2014). Since it is only applicable for drained applicable for the clayey and silty zones 1 to 4 (Österreichisches
soils, Eq. 16 should only be used if the condition Ic < 2.60 is Normungsinstitut, 2017).
fulfilled (Robertson, 2009). To investigate if this condition also = (p0 – u0) / σ’v0 (27)
fits for HSSR, all zones were evaluated with Eq. 16 where αE is R = (0.5 * )1.56 (28)
the Young’s modulus factor.
The undrained shear strength su can be calculated with Eq. 29 if
Es = αE * (qt - σv0) (16)
the condition ID < 1.2 is fulfilled (Österreichisches
αE = 0.015 * [10(0.55 * Ic + 1.68)] (17) Normungsinstitut, 2017).
According to Kulhawy and Mayne (1990), the effective friction su = 0.22 σ’v0 * (0.5 )1.25 (29)
angle ϕ’ can be calculated for rounded, uncemented quartz sands
The small strain stiffness G0 can be derived from the density ρ
(Eq. 18). This is applicable for zones 5, 6, 7 and 8 (Table 2).
and the shear wave velocity Vs by applying Eq. 30 (Robertson &
ϕ’ = 17.6 + 11 * log Qtn (18) Cabal, 2014). For the calculation of the density, the unit weight
The overconsolidation ratio OCR is calculated according to determined after Marchetti & Crapps (Totani et al., 2001) is used.
Robertson (2009) and is valid for overconsolidated clays (Eq. 19). 0 =ρ * Vs2 (30)

533
2.2.3 Preliminary Investigations
During preliminary investigations on site between 2005 and 2012,
ground parameters of the soil complexes B to E (Table 1) were
compiled. In addition, parameters for alternation layers of sand
and silt were defined, which correspond to a gradation between
layer complex D and E. With the help of drill cores and trial pits,
which were created in the proximity of the CPTu soundings, the
characteristic values of the soil were compared with the results
from the CPTu tests over depth.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 CPT limitations

The limiting factors of CPTs are basically the cone resistance and
the rod friction. Table 4 shows the percentage of both with Figure 4: Total thrust force over the depth for 10, 15 and 24 cm² cones
respect to the total thrust force Qtm for five different soundings. without friction reduction.
CPTu_5 hit an obstacle and can therefore be neglected.
3.1.2 Comparison of friction-reducing measures
Table 4: Percentage of cone resistance and rod friction force to total thrust
Figure 5 (top) shows a comparison of CPT-tests with 10 cm²
cones with and without friction reduction. Friction reducers,
force.
regardless of the type, result in a clear advantage in terms of the
Sounding Depth Qtm Cone Rod
[m] [kN] resistance friction achievable penetration depth and resulting thrust force.
CPTu_2_I_15_nfr -19.70 173* 31 % 69 % Figure 5 (bottom) compares 15 cm² cones (10 cm² rods) with
CPTu_2_II_15_nfr -18.84 188* 24 % 76 % and without friction reducers. A significant advantage due to the
CPTu_3_I_15_nfr -19.74 89 15 % 85 % additional friction reduction measures could not be determined.
CPTu_4_I_15_nfr -17.67 119 13 % 87 % However, a benefit could be achieved by installing a casing
CPTu_5_I_15_nfr -9.48 182* 64 % 36 % which stabilizes the push rods and minimizes the frictional force
*Equipment limit reached (obstacle) along the rods (DCPT_2_III_15_nfr_c, Figure 5). The casing
was pushed around the push rods down to a depth of 11 m when
3.1.1 Comparison of 10 cm², 15 cm² and 24 cm² cones the CPT reached a depth of 18.9 m. This resulted in a sudden
Figure 4 shows the total thrust force of soundings with a cone reduction of the total thrust force by 25 kN (at 18.9 m and
cross-section of 10, 15 and 24 cm². For soundings with 10 and further).
24 cm² (green & purple lines) cones, a significantly higher
amount of effort is required to achieve the same depth as with
15 cm² cones (blue, yellow & red lines). The overall sounding
depths increased considerably by utilizing the 15 cm² tip.
Contrary to the obtained results visible in Figure 4 one would
think that a cone with larger cross-section requires more pushing
force. Consequently 10 cm² cones should require less effort and
reach higher depths. However, friction can have a share of up to
70 % of the total thrust force (Table 4). CPTs with a 15 cm² cone
were used with 10 cm² rods whereas soundings with the 10 and
24 cm² cones utilize rods with 10 and 24 cm² cross-section.
Consequently, the 15 cm² cone already acts friction reducing by
widening the thrust hole and therefore enables deeper soundings
than a 10 cm² tip. The conducted tests show differences between
a local mounted expansion (cams) and a continuous widening of
the thrust hole due to a larger cone. An explanation of the legend
for the Figures 4 to 6 is illustrated in Table 5.

Table 5. Legend for the following figures.

Code Explanation
CPTu Piezocone
DCPT Dummy-cone
nfr No friction reduction
10, 15, 24 Cone cross-section [cm²]
wfr With friction reduction
8ca(4) 8 cams welded on the rods (at 4 locations)
fl flushing
h Pagani hull
40dg, 50dg Cone opening angle [°]

Figure 5: Total thrust force over depth for 10 cm² (top) and 15 cm²
(bottom) cones with different friction reducers.

534
3.1.3 Comparison of cones with different apex angles
Figure 6 (top) shows the total thrust force over depth of cone
penetration tests using 10 cm² cones with different apex angles
(40, 50 and 60°). The maximum sounding depth differs slightly
and ranges between 15.5 m (50°, yellow) and 17.2 m (40°,
green). The total thrust force is lower for cones with a sharper
opening angle. Figure 6 (bottom) shows the results from
soundings with 15 cm² cones with different apex angles.
Especially at a depth between 12 and 20 m soundings with
sharper tip angles require lower thrust forces. This can be
explained by the failure mechanism of the soil during the
sounding. Baligh (1985) shows the behavior of clayey soil for a
penetration with 60° and 18.5° cones. A penetration with a
standard tip leads to a strong deformation around the cone, while
pushing a probe with an 18.5° tip results in a failure mechanism
describing a cutting process. Furthermore, Baligh’s (1985)
calculations show that the maximum shear deformation is lower
for a penetration with a smaller opening angle. However, this
adaptation involves an increase in wear which can become
critical when measuring with piezocones (costs).
A numerical simulation of CPT tips with different apex
angles (40, 50 and 60°) confirmed the in situ results. The analysis
was conducted with G-PFEM by Hauser L. (Institute of Soil
Mechanics, Foundation Engineering and Computational
Geotechnics, TU Graz; based on Monforte et al., 2017).
Figure 6: Total thrust force over depth for 10 cm² (top) and 15 cm²
(bottom) cones with different apex angles.
3.2 Soil properties from CPTu & SDMT methods and
preliminary investigations
3.2.1 Comparison of CPTu and SDMT-data
A comparison of the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) for the
SDMT and CPTu soundings shows that the values are similar in
both types of exploration. However, while at one site the SDMT
measurements indicate a higher OCR than the CPTu values, the
results at two other sides are exactly the opposite. It could also
535
be observed that the discrepancy between CPTu and SDMT data
is relatively large near the surface but decreases with depth. It is
evident from the high CPTu values in the sandy and gravelly
areas that Eq. 19 is only suitable for calculating the extent of
overconsolidation in fine-grained soils (Figure 8, grey dashed
line).
The calculated shear strengths based on CPTu data agree
with the results obtained by DMT measurements (Figure 7). In
sandy and gravelly areas, the undrained shear strengths
correlated by CPTu tests are much higher than the shear strength
based on DMT measurements. It can therefore be concluded that
Eq. 20 is only suitable for calculating the undrained shear
strength for soil behavior types 1 to 4 and 9.
The comparison of the soil unit weight γ from both
exploration methods shows the different resolutions of the
measurements. CPTu data is recorded each centimeter whereas
the DMT measures every 20 centimeters. However, the results of
both sounding devices is in good agreement.
Figure 7: SBTn (CPTu), OCR & su (DMT & CPTu) over depth.
3.2.2 Comparison of CPTu & preliminary investigation data
Since the soil parameters used for comparison were mainly
obtained from laboratory tests, this comparison should be treated
with caution. Factors such as the stress history, the in situ stress
and the macro fabric have an influence on the onsite data but are
usually only partially considered in the results of the laboratory
tests (Robertson, 2009). The soil unit weight determined by
preliminary investigations and the CPTu soundings overlap for
the most part. The sounding results show an increase of the unit
weight with increasing depth. It is known from Eq. 4 that the unit
weight is strongly dependent on the cone resistance and the
friction ratio. Since an increase of these values was observed with
rising depth, the calculated unit weight consequently increases
with depth. A good agreement of the unit weight is mainly given
in the cover and in gravelly areas.
The trend of the friction angle determined by cone penetration
tests corresponds to the soil properties but tends to overestimate
the indicated values by 5 to 15 degrees. Close to the surface, the
derived friction angle of the CPT soundings is consistently to
high but decreases continuously throughout the silt layer until a
depth of about 10 m. The high values around the cover (layer B)
result from the low overburden pressure and the resulting high
normalized cone resistance (Eq. 12 & 18).
Primarily in gravelly soil and in soil layer D (Table 1), the
Young’s modulus shows a very good agreement with the results
obtained from the preliminary investigations. However, the
Young’s modulus (based on CPTu) in layer B is between 30 and
100 % higher than the values obtained during the preliminary
investigations. In soil layer E and deeper, the CPTu Young’s
moduli tend to be higher than the comparative values as Eq. 16
is suitable for calculating Es of young, uncemented quartz sands.
A grey dashed line in Figure 8 indicates a calculation approach
(Eq. 16, 17 & 18) which is usually not intended for the present
ground type. Nevertheless, plausible and consistent results could
be obtained with this approach even in fine-grained areas. A
higher discrepancy is visible in the area of friable siltstone layers
(between 14 & 16 m depth) where a sudden increase of the cone
resistance at an almost constant overburden pressure led to a
higher Young’s modulus (due to the relations of Eq. 16).
Figure 8: Spec. weight, friction angle & Young’s modulus (CPTu vs.
prelim. investigation) over depth.
4 CONCLUSION & OUTLOOK
The correlations used to calculate the ground properties based on
CPTu and SDMT soundings are partially valid but do not reflect
all the characteristics of hard soil and soft rock. Further
measurements should be carried out to confirm and adapt
existing equations related to soft fine-grained soils for the use in
HSSR ground conditions. A determination of ground parameters
exclusively based on CPTu/SMDT data is not yet reasonable, but
these methods are suitable in combination with other exploration
methods such as core drillings.
The CPT results show that the sounding depth can be
increased by using friction reducers and steeper tip angles.
Furthermore, a 15 cm² tip in combination with a 10 cm² rod
requires less energy and allows deeper penetrations than cones
with 10 and 24 cm² tips with 10 and 24 cm² rods. A reduction of
the tip angle from 60 to 40° increases the sounding depth and
leads to a reduction of the total thrust force. Whether a further
reduction of the tip angle still proves favourable in penetrating
HSSR layers could not be verified because of the problematic tip
536
wear. Considering CPTs in HSSR the results show that it is
possible to penetrate clay and siltstone layers with an UCS of
about 1.2 to 3 MPa. A possible penetration within soft rocks with
a strength beyond 3 MPa could not be proven so far. To
investigate soft rocks with an UCS above 3 MPa other tests must
be considered in any case. A possibility of supplementing these
studies would be the additional examination of the ground with
the help of rotary drillings. A measurement while drilling
(MWD) based drilling equipment is hardly limited by the
considered UCS of HSSR and delivers machine data in real time.
This information includes ground dependent drill parameters
which can be compared and correlated to the results from core
drillings, laboratory tests and CPTu/SDMT soundings. The
possibilities of these investigations are currently being worked
out and are the focus of ongoing research.
5 REFERENCES
Baligh, M. M. (1985). Strain Path Method. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 111(9), 1108–1136.
Durgunoglu, H. T. & Mitchell, J. K. (1974). Influence of Penetrometer
Characteristics on Static Penetration Resistance. In Proceedings of
the European Symposium on Penetration Testing ESOPT,
Stockholm, June 5-7, 1974 (S. 133–139).
GeoLogismiki (2014). CPeT-IT User's Manual v.1.4.
Harmuth, M. (2020). Identifizierung der Grenzen von
Drucksondierungen in halbfesten bis festen Böden.
Kulhawy, F. H. & Mayne, P. H. (1990). Manual on estimating soil
properties for foundation design.
Marchetti, D., Fabris, C. & Schweiger, H. F. (2019). In‐situ‐Versuche mit
Flat Dilatometer und seismischem Dilatometer. Geomechanics and
Tunnelling, 12(4), 306–317.
Marchetti S. (1980). In Situ Tests by Flat Dilatometer. Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, 106(GT3), 299–321
Marcher, T., Stauder, S., Winkler, M. (2020) HSSR – Ein Versuch der
Abgrenzung des Materials. Minisymposium Hard Soil/Soft Rock,
TU Graz, Österreich, 27. November 2020.
Monforte, L., Arrroyo, M., Carbonell, J. M., Gens, A. (2017). Numerical
simulation of undrained insertion problems in geotechnical
engineering with the Particle Finite Element Method (PFEM).
Computers and Geotechnics 82 (2017).
Österreichisches Normungsinstitut (15. Oktober 2013). Geotechnische
Erkundung und Untersuchung - Felduntersuchungen Teil 1:
Drucksondierungen mit elektrischen Messwertaufnehmern und
Messeinrichtungen für den Porenwasserdruck. (Europäische Norm,
ISO 22476-1:2012).
Österreichisches Normungsinstitut (15. Juli 2017). Geotechnische
Erkundung und Untersuchung - Felduntersuchungen Teil 11:
Flachdilatometerversuch. (Europäische Norm, ISO 22476-11:2017).
Robertson, P. K. (2009). Interpretation of cone penetration tests - a
unified approach. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 46(11).
Robertson, P.K., (2010). Soil behaviour type from the CPT: an update.
2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, CPT’10,
Huntington Beach, CA, USA.
Robertson, P. K. & Cabak, K. L. (2010). Estimating soil unit weight from
CPT. In Gregg Drilling & Testing Inc. (Vorsitz), CPT'10 2nd
International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing: Conference
Proceedings, Hundtington Beach, California.
Robertson, P. K. & Cabal, K. L. (2014). Guide to Cone Penetration
Testing for Geotechnical Engineering.: 6th Edition. Gregg Drilling
& Testing, Inc.
Stauder, S., Marcher, T. (2020). Numerical modelling of “hard soil and
soft rock” – a contribution towards the understanding of the
mechanical behaviour of weak rock in ITA-AITES World Tunnel
Digital Congress and Exhibition and the 46th General Assembly. 11-
17 September, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Totani, G., Marchetti, S., Monaco, P. & Calabrese, M. (2001). The Flat
Dilatometer Test (DMT) in Soil Investigations: A report by the
ISSMGE Committee TC16.